In the box:
They both come with the same things in the box (strap, manual and pouch), the strap for the 15x50’s is bigger, better quality and the Canon logo is embroidered vs printed on the 12x36’s.
The 15x50’s came with a little Guarantee card, 10 years for the binoculars, 1 year for the electronics and electrics.
 
The 12x36’s case has a zipper and a strap, the 15x50s have a clip and flap where you pass the strap from the bins.
Construction:
The 15x50’s have a more rubbery feel because they actually have a rubber coating, whereas the 12x36’s have matt cool rubber texture, but not actually rubber… I prefer the feeling of the 12x36’s.
The 15x50’s are significantly heavier and fatter, whereas the 12x36’s fit snuggly in my hand.
Canon doesn’t seemed to have been concerned about the weight of the 15x50’s, if I look through the objective I can see biggish phillips screws, solder points and a mostly metal construction. Looking through the 12x36’s it looks mostly sturdy plastic.
The 15x50’s are also stiffer everywhere, adjusting the dioptre and intraocular separation is quite stiff on the 15x50’s and quite smooth on the 12x36’s.
 
 
 
 
Chances are you’ve read that the eyecup (eyepiece rubber) on the 15x50’s is horrendous, it’s not as nice as on the 12x36’s, but it’s not too bad. The eyecups are unnecessarily big, and don’t hug your eye sockets well. If you have a large nasal bridge this maybe an issue.
I’ve been toying with the idea of adding some neoprene around the outer part of the eyecup to create a horn shape eyecup for a more enclosed feeling
 
The rubber, like everything else about the 15x50’s is stiffer.
A big bonus with the 15x50’s is that they have a standard thread tripod mount, this is essential for astronomy. Sure you could make/buy a support for the 12x36’s, but it’s nice not needing to.
The objective optical or antireflective coating of the 15x50’s reflects a purple light, whereas the 12x36’s a green light… so the lens looks purple or green. I’m not sure which is better, but the 10x42 L’s are also green.
The 15x50’s are supposed to be weather proof (haven’t tested), so this may prevent them from fogging up when going from a cold dry place to a warm humid place and maybe last longer.
12x36 IS II weight with 2xAA battery: 706gr
15x50 IS AW weight with 2xAA battery: 1208gr
Performance:
I was very surprised that the 15x50’s don’t appear to magnify much more than the 12x36’s, they magnify stars by about ~10%. With terrestrial objects I can’t discern much, if any difference in magnification, and certainly not the expected 20%.
But what they do allow is better resolution; by resolution I mean I am able to resolve the detail of the object better. I did a couple reading tests with both, and with the 15x50’s I was able to read words that were impossible to decipher with the 12x36’s.
Example: I had a can of furniture polish on the other side of the house, and I started looking with the 12x36’s, I could easily read the large writing, but I focused on a small area that looked like:
Sdlvvmt Ahvco
Oem him
IhttbnHy
With the 15x50’s after steadying myself and trying I was able to see it said:
Solvent Abuse
Can Kill
Instantly
The words didn’t look any bigger, just clearer.
Now here’s an area that may interest you, that isn’t in the official specs and hasn’t been written about (AFAIK)… close focus distance; the 15x50’s focuses closer @ 4.30m vs the 12x36’s @ 5.72m.
Both exhibit some minor chromatic aberration, I’m not sure which is worse. With the 12x36’s looking at Jupiter and equating it to the face of a clock there’s a largish white>purplish deformity at the 5 o’clock position. With the 15x50’s there’s a smaller red colour band at 5 o’clock and another small green band at 10 o’clock, there’s also a faint light halo that extends significantly from ~12 o’clock to ~3 o’clock.
Depending how you position your eyes to the eyepiece this changes slightly. Looking at Jupiter and it’s moons the 15x50’s also produce a much brighter image ~30%, as you might expect from the 33% larger objective.
 
 
 
Image stabilization:
Is stabilization even necessary? YES.
I read the 12x36’s have better IS and the spec’s give it an extra 0.1 degrees, so I kept thinking they were better; but in practise there is no discernable difference. You have to keep the button pressed with the 12x36’s which is no big deal, and with the 15x50’s you can either keep it pressed and when released it will disengage, or you can press once and it will stay on for 5 minutes or turn off with another press. The manual says the 12x36’s battery last 4hrs, and 2.5hrs for the 15x50’s.
I’ve also read that the image becomes blurry when you engage the IS… with both I may very slightly adjust focus… but I found myself doing the same with IS not engaged. I think it’s a natural consequence of verifying you have the best focus possible… I wouldn’t classify this as an issue.
The 15x50’s make a click noise when the IS is engaged, kind of like a solenoid actuator.
Conclusion:
In day to day use there is very little difference between the two. I have both Canon’s 70-300mm lenses, and I would equate the 15x50’s with the L version. The 70-300mm L won EISA Pro Lens 2011, but I think there’s very little difference between it and the non L. It’s bigger, heavier, stiffer, looks more Pro (white), weather sealed, produces slightly sharper images and costs 75% more.
But this is the case with everything, producing something 5% better costs a lot more.
In brief, there’s minimal noticeable difference in magnification, but the 15x50’s give a clearer image.
If money is of no concern and you don’t mind the weight, the 15x50’s are better.
If you want to carry a pair of bin’s, on safari, the zoo, whale watching the 12x36’s will make you happy.
If you want to look at Jupiter (always looks the same, but the moons move), then the 15x50’s will make you twice as happy because they’re clearer and have a tripod mount.
Which would I keep? I’m a sucker for performance, so I find myself reaching for the 15x50’s, but I sure wouldn’t want to travel far with them.
The score:
12x36 IS II: 88/100
15x50 IS AW: 92/100
|
|